W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Denotation of datatype values

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:52:09 +0300
To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8E4F089.136CE%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-04-18 19:20, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> At 20:16 16/04/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> On 2002-04-16 20:03, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>> At 16:33 15/04/2002 -0400, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> I don't want to be a party-pooper, but I honestly feel that having an MT
>>>> and sticking to it is one way to get past this kind of half-formalized
>>>> (and rather confusing) kind of discussion. I do not know what these
>>>> 'levels' are supposed to be, or how to recognize them, or how to evaluate
>>>> talk about them, etc. etc. . Why not stick to the syntax and the MT, and
>>>> just talk about that? Then everything is clear. What an application wants
>>>> to do with an RDF graph is up to it, not up to us. All we can do is to
>>>> provide application writers with a gold standard for meanings, and leave
>>>> other 'layers' to them.
>>> I agree.
>> That's a pity, because there are lots of users of RDF who can't
>> read or understand the MT. So...
>> There are many different kinds of "customers" who will read the
>> RDF Datatyping specification, and we need to be sure that it is
>> clear and approachable -- and ultimately *usable* -- to them all.
> Yes, I think I am persuaded of that.  The trick might be to have a clear
> distinction between the formal specs and more tutorial oriented text.

I'm not yet convinced that we need a completely separate tutorial.

I see two primary issues with the present WD:

1. The use of the "datatyped literal" terminology. I am quite happy
to remove that and try to capture the significance of the association
of the literal with a datatype in some other way.

2. Whether the inline idiom, the combination of literal and globally
asserted datatype, identify/express/communicate/whatever a datatype
value. I say it does. Pat seems to say it doesn't. I consider the
MT to say it does. Pat seems to say the MT doesn't say that.

If it is the consensus of the WG that the datatyping MT does *not*
say that, then I strongly assert that it should.

The debate seems to border at the RDF/extra-RDF boundary, as to
what is or is not denoted explicitly in the graph or what RDF
can or cannot say about a given lexical form.

I get the impression that Pat and I are simply viewing the issue
from different perspectives. I'm focusing on what we need RDF
Datatyping to accomplish, and trying to fit those needs/expectations
into the present definition, and the application of the present
definition to the "big picture", including considerations that
lie beyond the graph. Pat seems to be focusing on the
minimum of what the MT says, and strictly at what is explicit
in the graph. Both are valid/needed perspectives.
And I think we may actually agree, but can't see it yet.

It won't be the first time we've agreed yet stumbled over
words (mostly mine ;-)


Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 15:10:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC